BARNOLDBY-LE-BECK PARISH COUNCIL
Mrs K Kirkham 14 Househams Lane Clerk to the Council Legbourne Telephone: Louth Email: [email protected] LN11 8LG
29th October 2020
NELC planning Department
Case Officer - Richard Limmer
Dear Sir/Madam,
Planning Reference: DM/0056/20/FUL Proposal: Erect 82 dwellings to include garages, access roads and landscaping (amended site layout plans including zebra crossing, boundary treatments and plot repositions - Sept 2020. Location: Land at Bradley Road, Barnoldby Le Beck
I can confirm that the above amended plan was discussed by Barnoldby le Beck Parish Council at their virtual meeting held on 28th October 2020. Following a review of the plans and discussion, the Parish Council unanimously agreed that their previous comments have not been addressed and maintain their previous stance to oppose this application. The Parish Council are dismayed that the number of dwellings have been increased from 66 to 82 and the further impact this will have.
Kindest Regards
Kim Kirkham Barnolby Le Beck Parish Clerk
Carol Pedersen (Engie)
From: Joan Sent: 29 October 2020 15:36 To: Planning - IGE (ENGIE) Subject: DM/0056/20/FUL | Erect 82 dwellings to include garages, access roads and landscaping (amended site layout plans including zebra crossing, boundary treatments and plot repositions - Sept 2020) | Land At Bradley Road Barnoldby Le Beck North East Lincolnshir Attachments: Planning objection October 2020.doc
Good afternoon
Please find attached our comments on the amended plans for planning application DM/0056/20/FUL
Kind Regards Joan and Rod Sargent, 60 Bradley Road, Waltham DN37 0UZ
1 Having examined this new set of amended plans, my husband and I continue to object to the proposed development.
Our previous objections, outlined in July 2020 still stand –
• Safety concerns with extra traffic on an already busy road (made narrower now that traffic is not allowed to park on the verges); potential problems caused by the bend in the road close to the main entrance to the proposed development; and the potential for increased movements by traffic from the development exacerbating delays at peak hours on High Street in the village.
• Infrastructure concerns, already at risk because of the large-scale developments on Cheapside and Brigsley Road – school accommodation, parking in the village centre, lack of GP in the village.
• Concerns for the wildlife currently taking advantage of the grassland.
• Destruction of valuable green space which has been proven to aid mental health. If houses are urgently required, why are we not developing more of the brownfield sites within the town's boundary?
• Level of nuisance and disturbance, during and after the building work, with the main entrance to the site being almost opposite our bungalow
In addition, we note that the amended plan includes a bin area almost directly opposite our bungalow. We are concerned that an accumulation of bins in one place will not only look very unsightly, but will become an attraction for vermin. Carol Pedersen (Engie)
From: Graeme Clifton Sent: 26 October 2020 10:26 To: Planning - IGE (ENGIE) Subject: Planning Application DM/0056/20/FUL
Dear Sir,
Proposal: Erect 82 Dwellings on Land at Bradley Road, Barnoldby Le Beck, North East Lincolnshire (Sept 2020)
I have attempted to access the planning website on a number of occasions and the site shows an ‘ERROR’ such that access is denied.
This Email is an addendum to my previous objection to this planning application. My previous objections were registered via your website and the immediate objection which jumps to mind involves the additional traffic, caused by this new development, along Bradley Road. Bradley Road is no more than a country lane with very high vehicle density already at peak periods. I note that a traffic survey has already been undertaken to assess the impact of the additional traffic. For a traffic survey to capture the true nature of the safety concerns, the survey needs to include a thorough review of the peak commuter traffic flow, in summer, when it includes; farm vehicles, cyclists, heavy goods vehicles and walkers on the road. Hence for the survey to be of real value it needs to include an 'on site' visual assessment of the current traffic status over a reasonable period of time.
There have been a number of quite serious accidents on this road notably on the acute bends. During the height of harvest season there is intense farm traffic along the road. On road vehicle parking already restricts traffic flow at the Waltham end. Heavy and Light Goods vehicles regularly use the road as a route to the M180 - these particular vehicles exacerbate the traffic flow restrictions throughout the length of the road. I personally find it unsafe to cycle along this road at peak periods.
I believe that a significant widening of Bradley Road, throughout its length, is needed to support the new development and therefore make it safe for all road users.
I hope I will be given the opportunity to review the plans in greater detail once the north east lincs website faults are repaired.
Regards
Graeme Clifton
1
SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING AGENDA – 4TH NOVEMBER 2020
ITEM 2 – DM/0506/20/FUL – DAISY DENE, DEATON LANE, NEW WALTHAM
ADDITIONAL INFORMATIVE: The applicant should note that this planning permission is for a new fence only and not an extension to the existing fence, to be installed as detailed on the approved plan.
Planning Application DM/0265/20/REM – 59 Cheapside
I wish to comment on the Drainage Consultation Response 19th, October 2020. Surface water drainage plans have not altered with this proposal of three bungalows because they are the same three dwellings proposed in DM/0735/17/FUL and DM/0759/19/FUL; minus rooms in the roof.
Surface Water I challenge Drainage to explain why a small development of three dwellings needs to discharge surface water into the beck at all. Infiltration tanks alone on this site should be able to infiltrate water from the roofs and access road without the need to discharge via a pipe into the watercourse, whether at Greenfield rates or not.
The infiltration tank and ground conditions will not allow percolation through the soil at actual Greenfield rates as it does now, so surface drainage must discharge to the beck. Why has there been no other mitigation designed into this development to reduce the volume of surface water before it reaches the infiltration tank? There are design options open to achieve this.
No account is taken of the increasing frequency of high water flows since 2007.
Before 2007 this stretch of beck had never risen to the level that caused the flooding of our properties. Since that time it rises to high levels in periods of wet weather, even after moderate rainfall. The winter of 2019/20 was no exception. Residents have submitted photographs of the beck here showing water level with the top of the bank; by no means a 1:100 year event that Sustainable Drainage Systems are supposed to take in their stride.
What has changed since 2007 is the climate and an increase in the number of homes built in Waltham. Where is data on how the beck is coping with all this increase? The beck’s capacity is finite.
Greenfield rates calculated for SUDs gives at best an approximation of the actual drainage rates. My objection to discharge into the beck is not that the flow from this development will increase the risk of flooding. I object to the discharge of surface water into the beck that is under stress during periods of heavy rainfall and where no one seems to have a clear overall picture of what is happening to it.
The system has to work in high water flows. How can it if the headwall is underwater?
Buck Beck Drainage says that the 6m gap distance from the beck is arbitrary and does not relate to the potential impacts on structural integrity, but is to facilitate maintenance. Drainage comments in DM/0759/19/FUL “the design of the foundations of the proposed dwellings should also be considered” would indicate that type and depth of foundations for the dwellings do relate to proximity to the bank.
The comparison with Mount Pleasant is not particularly valid as the two sites are different and do not have the same problems attached to construction.
The documents do not answer these points for residents:- 1. The actual construction should be within the strict parameters of the documentation. 2. What is happening to the rest of the bank of Plot 1? Will the short section after the reinforcement be re-profiled and pushed forward? The four remaining trees may be removed after all. If their roots are excavated, will this short section be covered by erosion blanket until new roots establish? 3. How deep will the foundations need to be for the dwelling on Plot 1 in the unstable geology here considering how close it is to the reinforcement? 4. What exactly is to happen to the rest of this dynamic bank, now and into the future? (A document, RD 3962 -02 K, submitted for the appeal of DM/0759/19/FUL suggests that some of the trees currently shown on the possibly redundant RD: 3962-17 Proposed Site Plan (Alternative), would be removed if this proposal is accepted. It raises the question of bank instability in the 2017 application that led to bank having to be reinforced. Will the reinforced section need extending?)
Conclusion The proposal may well present a SUDs compliant surface water drainage scheme if it were sitting alongside any other watercourse. It takes no account of other factors affecting Buck Beck. Other residents who live alongside the beck elsewhere in the village are also feeling the effects of the increase in the number of high water levels.
The proposed drainage system is unacceptable. The practice of allowing discharge is short-sighted in this the main drainage channel of Waltham.
The documents referred to in the drainage comment do not answer the other concerns I have listed.
The proposed dwellings are too large for this site so consequently cannot avoid the complications proximity to the bank brings. The smaller bungalows originally proposed in DM/0735/17/OUT; allow a greater distance from the bank for all dwellings.
Aspects of this bank reinforcement leave the detail to planning conditions. Residents have to put their trust in a developer, some of whose actions have shown a lack of respect to the planning process and health and safety; resulting in Breach of Condition notices. I do not believe that planning conditions would be an effective control.
Frequent high water levels have a bearing on the bank; it is these flows that will find weaknesses and not the day to day low levels usually seen in Buck Beck.
Doubts remain that this proposal is in accordance with Policies 5 and 33 of the NELLP and I respectfully request the application be refused.
Stephen Boyd 8 Cheesemans Close Carol Pedersen (Engie)
To: Lauren Birkwood (Engie) Subject: RE: Planning - 16 Radcliffe Road, Healing - DM/0461/20/FUL
From: Richard Dixon Sent: 23 October 2020 15:12 To: Lauren Birkwood (Engie)
Hi Lauren,
Further to the latest letter of objection from the parish council that stated that they maintain their 2 objections, being on the grounds of concern regarding drainage (which they do not clarify or identify) and regarding concern in respect of the impact upon neighbours amenity, we would respond as follows: DRAINAGE
It is acknowledged that No 4 and No 6 Radcliffe Road have had a historic drainage and flooding issue in the past. This is not too surprising as they are in a dip at the bottom of the hill. However, the applicant has already spoken with the owner of No 6 Radcliffe Road and assured him, that if he ever makes a further planning application for the previously proposed and approved residential development of the site by the addition of two more dwellings, then he would include additional drainage provisions within that application to try and help alleviate his existing problem by ensuring rain water from his proposed buildings and hard surfaces will be discharged to the public sewer or other approved sustainable drainage system to be agreed as required.
Further my client has agreed to restrict these two new dwellings to one and a half storey's in height, subject to Council approval, in order to try any be helpful to the owners of No 6 and No 4, who wish to see such a design.
However, the current roof area of the existing building is fully drained to the mains surface water drainage system and has no impact upon anyone else’s land. The bungalow and it’s roof water drainage has nothing to do with the existing water issues in the back gardens of No 4 and No 6, and the new roof proposed is no greater in area, than the existing roof area and therefore the current planning application has no drainage implications on any neighbours.
We understand that the Council’s own internal consultations have raised no objections from their drainage, highways, public protection and trees and landscape sections and indeed no planning conditions in this regard have been recommended. We also understand that following the submission of revised plans addressing concerns of the planning officer these have now resolved matters such that the application will be recommended for approval.
1 IMPACT UPON AMENITY
Loss of amenity had originally been quoted as a reason for concern by 5 of the 16 neighbours based on the original submission. These concerns were reviewed and a revised and reduced scheme was then put forward to address these matters. In addition, additional cross sections and level plans have also been produced following a further site meeting with the planning officer (two months ago) to help explain the levels etc.
The applicant has taken the time to look at all other options including the possibility of building single storey extensions and/or rooms in the existing roof with dormers, but has been unable to attain a scheme that would prove to be sustainable. Indeed all of these alternative designs work out at 30-60% more expensive to gain the same floor space, and we agreed that these are actually no more favourable than the original scheme in terms of aesthetics.
We would like to clarify that the site is currently surrounded by 16 residential properties. Of these 9 are actually 2 storey dwellings, a further 5 are one & a half storey and only 2 are actually bungalows. Any suggestion that bungalows predominate in this area is simply not true.
Within the revised scheme we have tried very hard to address the issues raised by objectors.
This includes the overall size of the original proposals and the massing. In respect of which we have made a number of reductions to that scheme as shown on the revised plans which have resulted in the ridge line being lowered by over 1000mm, the reduction in the side wing by 1500mm, and the removal of the proposed gable end and replaced this with a hip roof, reducing this area by 3000mm. We consider the reduced massing to be acceptable.
We would point out that the proposal is over 15m and 50m, away from the one and a half storey dwelling at 12A The Avenue and the two storey dwelling at 14 The Avenue. The single small side facing window on the west elevation has now been obscure glazed to remove any overlooking to this side and we note that these two neighbours have not objected further to the revised scheme. By comparison we must point out that the new dwelling at 12A The Avenue, that has only recently been completed was approved and built with 4 new windows within 1m and clearly shown overlooking the applicant’s garden.
On the opposite side elevation the scheme only ever indicated obscure glazed bathroom windows, and indeed the neighbour at 14 Radcliffe Road, who has previously made similar changes to his bungalow to create a two storey dwelling and being only 8m from the applicant’s building, did not raise any objection to these windows. We would also point out that this previous planning approval, that is considerably closer to the applicant’s land, dwelling and windows, does also set a president for the current proposals.
No objections were received from any neighbours to the rear.
2 The revised scheme now includes just one new bedroom window facing the rear gardens of the properties on Radcliffe Road. This window is marginally short of 12m away from this boundary at its very closest point and more than 12m away for the vast majority of the whole boundary with No 6. Indeed it is over 20m away from all other boundaries to properties on Radcliffe Road, and it is nationally accepted that a separation distance of 12m is acceptable in such a location.
The possibility of overlooking is suggested by objectors, in some cases over huge distances, but overlooking must result in unacceptable harm and such harm does not exist in this case. To support this claim we would look to the previous planning approval for next door at No 14. We would also point out that the owners of No 6, in 2015 carried out a loft conversion to make their bungalow into a one and a half storey dwelling. They installed 2 rear facing roof lights and a side gable window all in clear glazing, all of which overlook the applicant’s garden. The applicant has no objection to these “overlooking” windows and we do not consider that they present substantial harm to the applicant’s amenity. Further we would suggest that owners of No 6, would not have installed these windows had they considered that these would have caused harm to any neighbour and on this note we would ask you to consider the scheme to be acceptable and approve the current scheme.
We would appreciate it if this email could be shared with the Healing Parish Council and Councillor David Hasthorpe and indeed if possible all planning committee Councillors prior to the meeting.
Richard Dixon FRICS C.BuildE FCABE
Richard Dixon Associates Ltd Chartered Surveyors & Architectural Services
14 High Street Bridlington YO16 4PX
Office No. 01262 603 501
3
Safeguarding Department Richard Limmer Statutory & Offshore North East Lincolnshire Planning New Oxford House Defence Infrastructure Organisation George Street Kingston Road Grimsby Sutton Coldfield North East Lincolnshire West Midlands DN31 1HB B75 7RL
Your reference: DM/1145/19/FUL Tel: 07970170926 Fax: +44 (0)121 311 2218 Our reference: DIO 10047224 E-mail: [email protected]
www.mod.uk/DIO
28 October 2020
Dear Richard
MOD Safeguarding – SITE OUTSIDE SAFEGUARDING AREA (SOSA)
Proposal: Construction and operation of an energy park comprising photovoltaic (PV) solar panels together with energy (battery) storage and associated infrastructure
Location: Land At Mauxhall Farm Immingham Road Stallingborough Grimsby
Grid Ref: 519,288 413,436
Thank you for consulting Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) on the above proposed development. This application relates to a site outside of Ministry of Defence safeguarding areas.
We can therefore confirm that the Ministry of Defence has no safeguarding objections to this proposal.
I trust this is clear however should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely
Kalie Jagpal Assistant Safeguarding Manager
Carol Pedersen (Engie)
From: Planning - IGE (ENGIE) Sent: 02 November 2020 10:54 To: Carol Pedersen (Engie) Subject: FW: DM/0056/20/FUL Bradley Road Barnoldby Le Beck Plans
-----Original Message----- From: Dawn Tuxworth Sent: 31 October 2020 21:57 To: Planning - IGE (ENGIE)
I am lodging my objections yet again to the proposed 82 dwelling proposal on the land at the above address. I have lodged my objections 4 times now and the reasons all still apply, more so since the number of proposed dwellings has grown from 66 to 82! I sincerely hope all previous objections are taken into account as they all still apply.
Why swallow up more green belt, prime farming land when there are hundreds of empty properties in Grimsby town centre which could easily be renovated, improving the town centre at the same time as providing in town accommodation for families who would prefer town centre living to an out of town residence.
The B road running between my house and the proposed development is not good enough for the volume of traffic it gets now, never mind the increase of nearly 200 vehicles the new development will generate. It is like a racetrack, vehicles do not adhere to the 30mph speed limit coming off the 40mph limit often travelling at speeds in excess of 60mph! It is a very dangerous road.
There are no available school places in Waltham, No GP practice, a fully subscribed dentist and very little parking which is always full around the shops in the village centre.
1 The view from my house is spectacular, I know its not considered but this is one of the reasons I purchased the house I’m in. Unimportant to those who decide and don’t live in the area.
It’s time for the powers that be to make the right decision and deny this development permission to ruin what is a lovely village at the moment, the massive developments nearby in New Waltham and Brigsley will cause major traffic congestion in the area without adding to that. The infrastructure is just not there, we do not have enough access roads into and out of town and permission to develop this land into unrequired housing.
Dawn Tuxworth, 74, Bradley Road, Waltham, Grimsby, DN37 0XQ
2